But one has to explain by just what parameters a UCF would be picked over a one loss Bama, a one loss Miami, a two loss Auburn, etc. etc. And, to me, that means more than just, "well they are undefeated". Some thing more than Eric's "I think that they are better than you think" because you don't give G5 wins credit".

Parameters like good opponents beat...good opponents opponents that were beaten..etc.

A reason why the computers have them in spot #11 is that those qualifiers aren't as good as some others ranked higher.

The computers don't have a conference loyalty or bias, a regional bias...they see pure algorithms...wins, losses, opponents wins and losses, etc.

Most algorithms start with wins and losses straight up....simple winning percentage. The rub always comes in qualifying those wins vs a strength of schedule...and different algorithms do that in different ways...

While many computer rankings methodology are kept as a proprietary secret, Colley lets you see inside his...and I assume many share aspects of his method of providing an iterative correction for strength of schedule.

Now...my own internal off of the cuff method is "what team would I think would win in a match up and by how much"...

We have historic data on that...

In college football...a team favored by 7 points has won 70.3 % of the time (a huge indicator)

A team favored by 3 points has won 57.4% ( much closer to 50-50)

Soooo...if I think that a team would be favored by 7 over UCF...I put them over UCF. No exact science since it is only my opinion.

The computers don't have a conference loyalty or bias, a regional bias...they see pure algorithms...wins, losses, opponents wins and losses, etc.

Are we going back to this? If computers algorithms are "spontaneously generated" then why do football poll rankings all come up with different results?

As for BYU in 1984. A prime example of Elitism. If you don't like the results, change the rules.

And if you spend a little time in Seattle, even this day, and go to the UW and say BYU was the 1984 champions, you make be swimming in Lake Washington. (The Huskies had a chance to play BYU in the Holiday Bowl and decide the National Championship on the field of play (the bowl committee offered Washington an invitation to the Holiday Bowl) but Washington didn't want to play BYU and declined the offer. They conveniently forget to tell that part of the story

“Never let a problem to be solved, become more important than a person to be loved."

I'm not advocating UCF to go to the playoff, I just think they belong in a NY6 game if they win the American. My point is that in those BCS/NY6 games, the mid-majors and the latter-day AAC actually have an extremely strong record. Because you're not inviting the MAC-as-a-whole, you're inviting the best team that also happens to be a mid-major. 8-3, leaving out the TCU/Boise Fiesta Bowl.

Taken as a whole, obviously the lower rung is inferior and nobody denies that. If you take that entire lower rung and select the best team out of it, don't be surprised that they end up being one of the top 15-20 teams in America. Same rule applies to FCS, the top FCS team is probably one of the 60-70 best teams in the country even though they have a severe recruiting disadvantage and fewer scholarships. Mixture of diamonds in the rough, coaching, mentality, etc. North Dakota State or James Madison being one of the top 70 teams in the country shouldn't be that controversial and they shouldn't get dragged down by the performance of Hampton or North Dakota.

If a team goes undefeated against FBS competition, they deserve an invite to the dance. They took care of what was in front of them, regardless of what kind of schedule their AD saddled them with. Reward the team with an opportunity to prove the doubters, there's no harm in it. Poor Washington has to go the Alamo Bowl against Oklahoma State or somebody because undefeated UCF took their spot, not really that important. I'd say leaving a team like Houston out of an exhibition game because you don't think much of them when they might actually be really good is a greater injustice than the indignity Florida State suffers from having to play them.

I saw the 12-1 Northern Illinois play in the Orange Bowl with their record setting quarterback, Jordan Lynch. True that they should have played in a BCS bowl...also true that they were not competitive.

I think that USA Today got it right...

MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. -- Let's go ahead get this straight. The two things that were true about Northern Illinois before Tuesday's Orange Bowl beatdown were true after: They absolutely deserved to be here, and they absolutely didn't belong.

[b]For all the complaints about Northern Illinois getting a BCS bid out of the Mid-American Conference despite a season-opening loss to a bad Iowa team, the debate was fraudulent. Northern Illinois was one of the six highest-rated conference champions in the BCS formula, and thus its trip here was earned just as fairly as Florida State's.

Having said that, Florida State was better – much better – and the 31-10 final score could have been far more lopsided had the Seminoles not indulged their decade-long habit of squandering opportunities against lesser competition.

[/b]

"The Seminoles out-gained Northern Illinois 534-259 and generally made quarterback Jordan Lynch look foolish, holding him to 44 rushing yards and 15-of-41 passing after he proclaimed last week that the Seminoles' defense "hadn't seen anything like our offense" in an interview with The Sporting News."

That was true. It was also true that Boise State was very competitive in the BCS bowls and didn't get a shot either. Point being that just because one team wasn't good enough doesn't mean they all aren't and also we just don't know. We think Alabama is pretty good this year. Maybe great. But their ooc record isn't very strong so if the SEC happens to be down we won't know until after the bowls. Which is why a tournament of champions should be the way to go. Any thing that is decided anywhere except the field is subjective.

Spence wrote:That was true. It was also true that Boise State was very competitive in the BCS bowls and didn't get a shot either. Point being that just because one team wasn't good enough doesn't mean they all aren't and also we just don't know.

Or in the case of Central Florida, which is why I mentioned them.

If we want to talk run downs:

UCF beat Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl; which was the Big XII tie-in BCS gameUCF had 3 consecutive possessions, where they turned the ball over on the first play of the driveAfter being down 14-0 in the 1rst quarter, Baylor fought back and tied the game 28-28 in the 3rd.UCF would then take the lead with a Touchdown, and would answer every Baylor score to finish.Baylor scored the last points of the game with 1:15 left on the clock, and still lost 52-42.

Baylor turned the ball over only one timeCentral Florida turned it over three times

Some had claimed that Baylor did not want to play in this game, so that's why they lost.

Clearly, Baylor played their hearts out, scoring as often as they could. The defense played strong enough to get three takeaways on three consecutive UCF offensive plays.

Baylor played well enough to beat most teams, and to me, that proves they wanted to win this game. But they didn't, because UCF simply out played them; and did so in Baylor's territory --- Central Florida was the better team. The statistics don't lie. UCF had to hold it together after turning the ball over on three straight 1rst down snaps.

In the end, Baylor just got outplayed.

Now, if you want to make a case, by expressing how bad Hawai`i looked against Georgia in their Sugar Bowl, that could be said --- however, the same could also be pointed out, that Utah looked quite a bit better than Pitt did in their Fiesta Bowl appearance.

In the same light; I could also note how frequently there was a blowout in BCS National Championship games, and that both teams in every National Title game of the BCS era, were BCS conference schools.

Looking at those numbers, you could easily surmise that, no one from the G5 conferences could do any worse.

...

Cane...[__]

"It is only impossible until it has been accomplished." ... then it becomes standardized ...and then it becomes regulation ...

Success is measured by results; whereas Character is measured through the means by which one achieves those results . . .

It seems the Rapture did come for one worthy soul:In Memory of Grandpa Howdy

Exactly, it's totally selective memory. Ole Miss gets thrashed by (Big 12-version) TCU in the Peach Bowl, nobody holds that against Ole Miss next year. They forgive and forget. Ole Miss can take care of business the following season and people will treat them like a demigod SEC program. A non-BCSer gets throttled in a similar fashion (which has only happened twice) and it's a pox on all their houses.

Eric wrote:Exactly, it's totally selective memory. Ole Miss gets thrashed by (Big 12-version) TCU in the Peach Bowl, nobody holds that against Ole Miss next year. They forgive and forget. Ole Miss can take care of business the following season and people will treat them like a demigod SEC program. A non-BCSer gets throttled in a similar fashion (which has only happened twice) and it's a pox on all their houses.

Or Ohio State getting totally smashed 31-0 by Clemson last year...and this year is a new year. A demi god Big Ten program....snort.

I think it depends on the history and recent consistency of the program...That 9 win Ole Miss team also throttled Boise State 35-13, beat 9 win Lafayette-La 56-15...and beat 10 win Memphis 24-3....as well as beating 12 win Bama (the SEC Champ) and finalist in CFP Champ game,

Now...TCU did start the next season as AP #2 (they weren't snubbed) and Ole Miss ar #17 (I think Eric spun some hyperbole).

For a true look at the forgiving of a demi god"...just look at the Buckeyes...lose 31-0 in the bowl they didn't show up at and start this season as #2 AP...

And Ohio State should have been better. But they aren’t and that is the reason they shouldn’t be in the playoff. Sometimes you don’t know. Last year Clemson blitzed Ohio State relentlessly because the could get a receiver open downfield and they didn’t respect Barrett’s ability to check down. They were right and it let Ohio State with no running attack, this no offense. The defense still can’t handle a play action QB. That much is really obvious this year. It wasn’t last year. Even knowing the deficiencies, no one had total ignored the passing game to that point.

Point is that you can’t know until they play the games. They should let them play the games or quit pretending that they are playing the games.